Fire Marshall Bill 2.0 wrote:Way to much is being made of him being the 22nd pick

Is someone really suggesting that a QB capable of winning a SB HAS to be had at the top of the 1st, never the bottom or the middle?

No sir. I'm not saying a SB winner can't come from any part of the draft, etc. I'm saying Weeden isn't good enough win SB, by the time you have a team capable of helping him he'll be retired and living in Boca and there were plenty of options between Colt and Weeden that wouldn't have cost what Weeden cost. People act like choice was either Colt or Weeden and that's an effing lie.

Last time- Team is more watchableWeeden>ColtTRich is good back who will be more than that when healthy

Weeden wasn't worth #22 and TRich not worth trading 3 picks to move up a spot.

Keep deficit spending or doing stupid shit and it costs you. It doesn't cost you less just because the shit you had before was really shitty.

You guys are starting to remind me of Buckeye honks.

Could you elaborate on these other options from the offseason? Flynn? Kolb? If that's what you're referring to, then I'll take Weeds.

All of them placeholders at worst, better than or no worse than Colt, none of them likely to cost anything close to 22 in the draft, some with potential. Free agents, trade opps, younger than or same age as Weeden.

All of whom would likely get you 3-5 wins just like Weeden will have at the end of the season.

Now, if you want to tell me that there was absolutely no one available other than Weeden at #22 I guess we'll have to part ways.

What's always conveniently forgotten is I'm fine with giving him next year because, as I also said, he needs it and he's earned it, but you're going to lose all credibility with me (which matters not, I understand) if you tell me Weeden at #22 was their only choice and that no one else out there gives you what that 29-yr old does.

Dime-a-dozen when we look back in ten years. Better than Colt though. Yee Haa!

Yet I'll be rooting for him hard on Sunday like everyone else.

Holy shit, that's your list? For one, post-Redskins trade, Luck & RGII were not options. Tsnnehill? Sweet Jesus. Kirk "Sparty" Cousins? Sure, better than Colt, but by how much? Osweiler? Brock Bleeping Osweiler? No, I'd rather take Colt (actually, I'd prefer waterboarding, but still). You're right on Wilson, but other than Carroll, who saw him as a starter? Caleb Hanie sucks at life. Kellen Clemens hasn't been relevant in 3-4 yrs. David Carr is a trainwwreck. McElroy can't jump Jesus Tebow for crap's sake. Tannehill beat out Moore. Fine on Flynn, but what's the point? Slightly better arm than Colt? Etc.

comish wrote:And I'm going to contest that obsolete or not, you STILL need a guy you can rely on to carry the ball. (Not to mention that the dude can CATCH the ball out of the backfield which is a nice weapon to have)

I play FF, I watch all the games, I KNOW how teams are moving the ball nowadays, and that you need a stud QB to cash in just about any league....not to mention at least ONE PPR machine receiver.

BUT

You still need a runner, should they have drafted him that high? Shrugs. It was one of 4 or 5 glaring needs on this team and they filled it with that pick, AND THEN PRECEEDED TO FILL (IMO effectively) MOST OF THEIR OTHER GLARING NEEDS AFTER. I'm still waiting to hear the name of the guy you boys think they should have drafted at that spot and am prepared to snicker now that the games have been played.

You also have to take into consideration that the brass NEEDED to make a splash...the fan base was near revolt. Taking T Rich and the Weed man helped energize that base....look at the attendace at training camp. You(and Lombardi)may call this panic...I call it business.

If Weeds doesn't make improvements next season, I will take my pummeling for this stance, but don't ya think, LP, that maybe, just maybe.....they got it more right than wrong this time?

Yeah, you need "a guy" to carry the ball. Kinda like that Starks guy GB rode. Or the myriad of "just guys" the Saints rode (of course their first round back has made their running game just take off) or the Giants "guys" last year that were last in the league in rushing. Or "the guys" Belichick has had rushing in his Super Bowls, from Antowain Smith to old Corey Dillon to Danny Wood-Jarvellis.

As far as naming who I would've drafted. Not my job. Get me the 6 figures and I'll get you the guy. But even off the payroll I'd suggest if you have needs it might be best to fill the more important needs first. If Dawson has his foot amputated in a month, you gonna trade up for a kicker?

And I had this opinion in the Wright place on draft day. I don't do hindsight.

And to be clear, cause insinuations seem to be being made. Heckert has done a nice job here. I'm just saying that I hate this first round, cause A. Trading up for ANY RB is unwise. B. I'm not too high on Weeds and C. They moved up for both of em'.

Lastly, if I DID do hindsight, and purposly picked a BUST at number four, the Browns would be in the exact same position. Because again, not only does RB not matter in 2012, a guy that's getting 3.5 a carry CERTAINLY doesn't matter. I'd expect TR to be quite a bit better next season - and I'd also only expect about 3 more excellent, yet factoring little seasons before he starts the downhill trend.

As I've said many times in these debates - it'll all play out. When TR (or any running back in modern football) is a main factor in a deep playoff drive, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. But anyone paying attention ain't holding their breath.

And stop with the "making a splash." If people hadn't stopped coming after 11 years of nonsense, they weren't going to stop after 12. And if they drafted to "make a splash" than that was unwise, cause the NFL is printing money. Better to draft to win, instead of draft to splash.

Fire Marshall Bill 2.0 wrote:Way to much is being made of him being the 22nd pick

Is someone really suggesting that a QB capable of winning a SB HAS to be had at the top of the 1st, never the bottom or the middle?

No sir. I'm not saying a SB winner can't come from any part of the draft, etc. I'm saying Weeden isn't good enough win SB, by the time you have a team capable of helping him he'll be retired and living in Boca and there were plenty of options between Colt and Weeden that wouldn't have cost what Weeden cost. People act like choice was either Colt or Weeden and that's an effing lie.

Last time- Team is more watchableWeeden>ColtTRich is good back who will be more than that when healthy

Weeden wasn't worth #22 and TRich not worth trading 3 picks to move up a spot.

Keep deficit spending or doing stupid shit and it costs you. It doesn't cost you less just because the shit you had before was really shitty.

You guys are starting to remind me of Buckeye honks.

Could you elaborate on these other options from the offseason? Flynn? Kolb? If that's what you're referring to, then I'll take Weeds.

All of them placeholders at worst, better than or no worse than Colt, none of them likely to cost anything close to 22 in the draft, some with potential. Free agents, trade opps, younger than or same age as Weeden.

All of whom would likely get you 3-5 wins just like Weeden will have at the end of the season.

Now, if you want to tell me that there was absolutely no one available other than Weeden at #22 I guess we'll have to part ways.

What's always conveniently forgotten is I'm fine with giving him next year because, as I also said, he needs it and he's earned it, but you're going to lose all credibility with me (which matters not, I understand) if you tell me Weeden at #22 was their only choice and that no one else out there gives you what that 29-yr old does.

Dime-a-dozen when we look back in ten years. Better than Colt though. Yee Haa!

Yet I'll be rooting for him hard on Sunday like everyone else.

Holy shit, that's your list? For one, post-Redskins trade, Luck & RGII were not options. Tsnnehill? Sweet Jesus. Kirk "Sparty" Cousins? Sure, better than Colt, but by how much? Osweiler? Brock Bleeping Osweiler? No, I'd rather take Colt (actually, I'd prefer waterboarding, but still). You're right on Wilson, but other than Carroll, who saw him as a starter? Caleb Hanie sucks at life. Kellen Clemens hasn't been relevant in 3-4 yrs. David Carr is a trainwwreck. McElroy can't jump Jesus Tebow for crap's sake. Tannehill beat out Moore. Fine on Flynn, but what's the point? Slightly better arm than Colt? Etc.

I thought better than Colt was the qualifier. Now you want degrees of better than Colt? And today, as it stands, Weeden is 'slightly better than Colt' so if you want to make that argument you go on ahead. Point being there were dozens (literally) of better options. Better compared to Colt and better compared to taking someone at 22 that's slightly better than Colt.

Every guy I mentioned is better than Colt either today or with a higher ceiling and you wouldn't have had to use 22 to get any of them except Tannehill. And like I said, personally, I hated thinking about Tannehill but I'd have taken he and Martin over Weeden/Richardson at the price paid.

As I've said many times in these debates - it'll all play out. When TR (or any running back in modern football) is a main factor in a deep playoff drive, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. But anyone paying attention ain't holding their breath.

How deep we talkin', here? Because Ray Rice, Marshawn Lynch (this year) and Frank Gore have something to say about that. And honestly, the only year the Aints won the super bowl is because they found a balance with their run game.

It's still part of the game, just not a part you can rest on. Green Bay and the Patriots are freakish anomolies. That Giants team lead by SOOPER ELITE Eli Manning still had 28 rushes in the game, last year. Most teams have to do both, to an extent.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

As I've said many times in these debates - it'll all play out. When TR (or any running back in modern football) is a main factor in a deep playoff drive, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. But anyone paying attention ain't holding their breath.

How deep we talkin', here? Because Ray Rice, Marshawn Lynch (this year) and Frank Gore have something to say about that. And honestly, the only year the Aints won the super bowl is because they found a balance with their run game.

It's still part of the game, just not a part you can rest on. Green Bay and the Patriots are freakish anomolies. That Giants team lead by SOOPER ELITE Eli Manning still had 28 rushes in the game, last year. Most teams have to do both, to an extent.

No one's arguing it isn't part of it and doesn't contribute. But from whom did those carries come from and where were they picked?

The Aints balance in the Super Bowl was 55 uards rushing and it was Pierre Thomas (and not Reggie Bush) who ran it most of the time.

It's just simply that you throw to set up the run and guys who can run it when you can throw it are easily found a bit lower in the draft than the 3rd pick and a 3rd pick you traded three picks to get.

Still need to run, yes.

ETA- Rice, Lynch and Gore all closer to end of line than beginning. They're dinosaurs too. And yes. I know Rice ain't "old" but he's got five years of wear on him and he's taken some beatings. Another reason why you don't spend huge picks on guys like that IMO.

I'm in agreement that the #3 in the draft was a reach for a RB in this day and age, and that the pick looks pretty meh, in general. Just saying, Ravens/SF are teams that are reliant on the run that made a deep post season run, last year, and that the Saints suck when they can't balance the run/pass.

You can get the guys anywhere, but if you can't run it effectively to balance the pass, you better have an evil genius or the best QB in the league or both running your offense.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

Gradysmanldy wrote:I'm in agreement that the #3 in the draft was a reach for a RB in this day and age, and that the pick looks pretty meh, in general. Just saying, Ravens/SF are teams that are reliant on the run that made a deep post season run, last year, and that the Saints suck when they can't balance the run/pass.

You can get the guys anywhere, but if you can't run it effectively to balance the pass, you better have an evil genius or the best QB in the league or both running your offense.

Yep. Will say I believe the 49ers took the next step by replacing Smith with a more dynamic QB in Kaepernick and that as Gore winds down (and he is) you'll see them look more like other teams that give carries to 'Just Guys' as opposed to relying on high pick RB. That dynamic QB may also extend Gore's shelf-life and career by forcing teams to look at other weapons and not key on Gore as much.

You can do that only if your QB is one of those 'elite' types. Kaepernick clearly not that yet, but he's capable of becoming that.

As I've said many times in these debates - it'll all play out. When TR (or any running back in modern football) is a main factor in a deep playoff drive, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong. But anyone paying attention ain't holding their breath.

How deep we talkin', here? Because Ray Rice, Marshawn Lynch (this year) and Frank Gore have something to say about that. And honestly, the only year the Aints won the super bowl is because they found a balance with their run game.

It's still part of the game, just not a part you can rest on. Green Bay and the Patriots are freakish anomolies. That Giants team lead by SOOPER ELITE Eli Manning still had 28 rushes in the game, last year. Most teams have to do both, to an extent.

You are missing my point. Not saying running the ball doesn't matter at all, saying that taking a particular runner with a valuable draft pick (let alone giving up otheres) is poor, poor business in modern football.

And Frank Gore, Ray Rice and Marshawn Lynch have won as much as me. And Rice (previously) and Gore (currently) have an awful lot of good going on around em'.

Look, again, you are running thru the passing game in this league. Yards per carry are at an all-time high because the only time teams are running is when they've found a mismatch (Aside from being way ahead in the game.) Yards per carry is at an all-time high, yet running back value is at an all-time low. This is not conjecture.

Now, there are two teams that are shifting a fullback right, then running right. Then shifting the fullback left, and running left. They are doing this while keeping garbage players - WHO ARE OF NO OPTION such as Owen Marecic and tight end Smith on the field, while others in the league not only run their running plays from an advantage, they also have an additional player out there that can make more plays then a lawn ornament.

So, how deep we talkin here - leaguewide - the last half dozen years. Unless you wanna remind me of the great running backs that either hoisted the trophy or played in the game. Joseph Addai?

The Patriots and Green Bay are not freakish anolmolis. They look like the Steelers, Saints, Ravens, Broncos etc. AND THE GIANTS WHO WERE LAST IN THE LEAGUE IN RUSHING. with the final greatness determined by who's steering the ship. The anomolies in the league are the Browns and Jets

At the end of the day the draft is about value. Running back holds little value in today's NFL - even less value to a team that has MANY needs. Drafting that position four overall is bad, trading up to do it is worse.

By the way, when the hire someone who isn't a GD idiot, I would assume TR's numbers get better just from the fact that he'll be able to benefit from mismatches he ain't getting now. It won't matter much in the big picture and his peak will be over by 2015, but hey, his numbers will be better.

The Aints balance in the Super Bowl was 55 uards rushing and it was Pierre Thomas (and not Reggie Bush) who ran it most of the time.

Mehbee....but it was Darrin Sproles who spread the field

And in what round was Darren Sproles chosen?

What round was Pierre Thomas drafted?

I have no idea nor do I care because it means nothing

Some of yas are talking as if the Browns are somehow ony 2-3-5 yrs away from a SB.... lmao...

I'll be the gut who says that the Browns will never win one...that way, maybe 10-15 yrs from now if the game still exists, you can come back and mock me

I'm here to tell you to just give up and find soemthing else to replace the angst of being a Browns fan...they just aren't worth it and they'e never going to pick "your guy" in the 4 spot whomever that was....

Oh, the game will be around in 10yrs. The Browns are probably scouring the baseball minor leagues right now for their 2021 first round quarterback.

In 10yrs, the NFL quarterback will wear a special belt. It will cast a laser image in the form of a circle, on the field, around the QB. It will have a 5 yard radius. It will be similar to the laser trip sensors you see in the movies. If a defensive player trips the sensor: 5 yards.

A common offensive philosophy will be to have the QB run at the defense. They will need to scurry away quickly, lest they draw a penalty.

Quarterbacks will commonly last into their 40s. In ten yrs, people will still want to see more from Brandon Weeden, to see if he can be 'the guy'.

Not arguing that it's a pass first league, not arguing that the pass sets up the run, and not arguing that taking any running back at #3 is unnecessary and a waste of a pick. I think most people on this board agree with that. I smell what you're stepping in, completely.

Only statement I was making is that you cant get away from the balance of using those run plays to keep teams honest; in a pass happy league, you still need to be ABLE to run the ball, or else you turn into the current iteration of the Saints. (Who half of the posters in here saw getting whopped by San Fran last year)

Also, feel like the Browns are doing this; archaic, innefective offense or not, it's obvious that this team is built to throw first, run second. (And not just because they suck at running at)

And the argument was "what teams made a deep playoff run" with those run heavy offenses, and the answer is: a few.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

Gradysmanldy wrote:Sproles wasn't even on the team when they won that super bowl.

Not arguing that it's a pass first league, not arguing that the pass sets up the run, and not arguing that taking any running back at #3 is unnecessary and a waste of a pick. I think most people on this board agree with that. I smell what you're stepping in, completely.

Only statement I was making is that you cant get away from the balance of using those run plays to keep teams honest; in a pass happy league, you still need to be ABLE to run the ball, or else you turn into the current iteration of the Saints. (Who half of the posters in here saw getting whopped by San Fran last year)

Also, feel like the Browns are doing this; archaic, innefective offense or not, it's obvious that this team is built to throw first, run second. (And not just because they suck at running at)

And the argument was "what teams made a deep playoff run" with those run heavy offenses, and the answer is: a few.

But Grady, we all saw the Saints get whopped in the playoffs last year?

They rushed for about 30 yards that game - they gained 500 for the game. They scored in the 30's. The only reason they lost is they didn't have the ball last.

The Saints are the last team you wanna bring up, cause they've been at the top of the heap in offense for years, with 3rd down backs like Bush and Sproles and about 50 other no names. If it was up to offense the Saints would lose a couple games a year.

This is exactly my point. You pass the ball. Running is a complement to take advantage of mismatches you've created with your passing formations.

And the Saints, and about every other offensive juggernaut of the last 6 years has shown you can take care of the running portion with just about anybody.

You shouldn't be close to balanced in 2012 (Taking out the run cause we're up by 30 plays) If you are running as much as you're passing, you're stupid. Period.

So what were the saints doing at the 2011 draft when they traded their #56 and a 2012 1st rounder for mark Ingram. What were the giants doing taking David Wilson with their first this year. These are low first rounders not #3 but brings up the question....when is it okay to draft a rb in this new age aerial nfl?

Believeland wrote:So what were the saints doing at the 2011 draft when they traded their #56 and a 2012 1st rounder for mark Ingram. What were the giants doing taking David Wilson with their first this year. These are low first rounders not #3 but brings up the question....when is it okay to draft a rb in this new age aerial nfl?

Good deal for the Saints, that Mark Ingram pick? What were the Saints doing???

Exactly.

Might have wanted to improve the world's worst defense. Any argument that this wouldn't be a wiser move? Whether Marc Ingram was any good or not.

And the Giants, Super Bowl champions, are probably going to be a little more position specific than a team that annually wins four games. If I was last in the league in rushing, and had Super Bowl talent, then a RB makes more sense. Still not a good pick ILO, but more understandable.

Again, when Marc Ingram or David Wilson is a main cog in a Super Bowl run, let me know.

Gradysmanldy wrote:Sproles wasn't even on the team when they won that super bowl.

Not arguing that it's a pass first league, not arguing that the pass sets up the run, and not arguing that taking any running back at #3 is unnecessary and a waste of a pick. I think most people on this board agree with that. I smell what you're stepping in, completely.

Only statement I was making is that you cant get away from the balance of using those run plays to keep teams honest; in a pass happy league, you still need to be ABLE to run the ball, or else you turn into the current iteration of the Saints. (Who half of the posters in here saw getting whopped by San Fran last year)

Also, feel like the Browns are doing this; archaic, innefective offense or not, it's obvious that this team is built to throw first, run second. (And not just because they suck at running at)

And the argument was "what teams made a deep playoff run" with those run heavy offenses, and the answer is: a few.

But Grady, we all saw the Saints get whopped in the playoffs last year?

They rushed for about 30 yards that game - they gained 500 for the game. They scored in the 30's. The only reason they lost is they didn't have the ball last.

Gotta say "whopped" is not at all an accurate term for a game where SF had to have an uncharacteristic last-second drive (via the pass) to regain the lead they gave up to the superior offense. Yes, SF's D helped force some of the turnovers that got them the big lead in the first place, but when NO roared back it was clear that Offense trumped Defense - on both sides of the ball.

Believeland wrote:So what were the saints doing at the 2011 draft when they traded their #56 and a 2012 1st rounder for mark Ingram. What were the giants doing taking David Wilson with their first this year. These are low first rounders not #3 but brings up the question....when is it okay to draft a rb in this new age aerial nfl?

Good deal for the Saints, that Mark Ingram pick? What were the Saints doing???

Exactly.

Might have wanted to improve the world's worst defense. Any argument that this wouldn't be a wiser move? Whether Marc Ingram was any good or not.

And the Giants, Super Bowl champions, are probably going to be a little more position specific than a team that annually wins four games. If I was last in the league in rushing, and had Super Bowl talent, then a RB makes more sense. Still not a good pick ILO, but more understandable.

Again, when Marc Ingram or David Wilson is a main cog in a Super Bowl run, let me know.

Not sure how you can argue against a Super Bowl Champ (who is obviously fine at many positions) taking a possible upgrade at RB at #32. No matter what the anti-RB diatribe (which I don't totally disagree with), calling that "not a good pick" is agenda-laden.

Believeland wrote:So what were the saints doing at the 2011 draft when they traded their #56 and a 2012 1st rounder for mark Ingram. What were the giants doing taking David Wilson with their first this year. These are low first rounders not #3 but brings up the question....when is it okay to draft a rb in this new age aerial nfl?

Good deal for the Saints, that Mark Ingram pick? What were the Saints doing???

Exactly.

Might have wanted to improve the world's worst defense. Any argument that this wouldn't be a wiser move? Whether Marc Ingram was any good or not.

And the Giants, Super Bowl champions, are probably going to be a little more position specific than a team that annually wins four games. If I was last in the league in rushing, and had Super Bowl talent, then a RB makes more sense. Still not a good pick ILO, but more understandable.

Again, when Marc Ingram or David Wilson is a main cog in a Super Bowl run, let me know.

Not sure how you can argue against a Super Bowl Champ (who is obviously fine at many positions) taking a possible upgrade at RB at #32. No matter what the anti-RB diatribe (which I don't totally disagree with), calling that "not a good pick" is agenda-laden.